Letters

Amid the predictable anti-gun hysteria already being fomented by the usual Second Amendment opponents after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre Friday, dare it be said that had any of the school personnel been armed, it's not unlikely most if not all of the victims would still be alive?

" Mordecai, So you envision the principal getting to the school safe, opening, loading and then seeking an intruder? Not like your home, I presume, where you are armed and loaded at all times. Just be sure it's locked away to protect yourself and loved ones from "finding" it. This argument that if armed you're safer has proven to be misleading if not just false. "

" Not only would there have been school personnel able to provide a defensive measure, a sociopath would most likely not even consider commiting the action if they feared they could not control the situation. "

" If there were a state law requiring an armed personnel to be present in all schools, the crime would have most likely not even been committed. The sociopath would have not even considered the crime if he could not control the situation. That's why he committed suicide immediatly upon seeing the police approaching. "

" All my teacher friends and family are educated professionals and they are shocked at this insane talk.....they are teaching their classes .....they are not going to walk around with an assault riffle all day.......they are not police officers or sharp shooters....which is what it would take for them to fend off an attack.....we need to get rid of high capicity clips so we don't have weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the general public..... "

" It would give the victims a chance and possibly be a deterrent .however there would be mass confusion/chaos .... Simply put,the good guy could be mistaken for a bad guy, i.e. friendly fire on both sides. No one rises to the occasion, they fall to the level of their training/experience. "

" @teach- that is your wish and that's fine. no one is advocating a requirement. what we say is, if they want to, and are qualified, they should be allowed to carry their personal defense weapon. that's it. "

" Hey while we're at it why not arm the students "if they choose"? Get my emotions in check? Al.cap do you have any idea what it's like to be a teacher? Any of your teacher friends telling you how they wish they could keep a gun in their desk? Seriously- I teach 5 year olds- am I supposed to walk around with a gun strapped to my side? I seriously think you'd be hard pressed to find elementary school teacher who would ever do this. Keep my emotions in check? 20 six and seven year old children were murdered in their classrooms when they were waiting to make gingerbread houses. Do you think while they were sitting there with their candy and frosting ready that when a crazed gunman armed with enough ammunition to take out the whole school burst into their classroom their teacher was going to be able to get out her gun and shoot him first? Not a chance. Yeah I'm a little emotional about this issue. Why aren't you? "

" and Vicki Soto had nothing she could do except die. if you prefer to stay unprotected, fine. but what gives anyone the right to tell another teacher that they don't have rhe right to defend themselves? i'm mad as hell that those women had no defense. all we get from the libs is an unworkable proposal to ban guns that are used in less than 40% of this type of attack. guard schools? no. let teachers carry? no. we're going to ban things. there isn't enough money for a buyback, and confiscation is unconstitutional, so, politicians being like they are, we'll get a registration program and some tough words. will you be any safer? "

" Look, I think there are a few misconceptions about what some of our point-of-view's are here. Allow me to be so bold and clarify.

1) Nobody is saying teachers should be mandated to carry. Some teachers want nothing to do with guns. That is an understood, and respected frame of mind by all of us. The suggestion is that citizens, who are in the teaching profession, and are licensed by the State of Connecticut to carry pistols and revolvers, be allowed to do so in school. That is all.

2) There is no reason you would need an assault rifle, tactically speaking, in a school. So Kitty, contrary to your hysteria, nobody is asking teachers to be teaching the alphabet with an AR-15 slung over their shoulder. A handgun is more than sufficient in almost any situation I can think of to eliminate a threat in such close quarters.

3) I have a few people, who are teachers, both friends and family. Like many they are spread on the issue. However, they all generally agree with me on the premise of if you are willing to trust an adult with your kids in your absence then you ought' to trust that adult, armed with your kids in your absence. The bottom line is, teachers are people too. They have a wide spectrum of opinions on all issues. They are entitled to those opinions.

@Kitty; @Brian; @Raven

Let us just say you get your way. 30 round magazines and assault rifles are banned and corresponding legislation is enacted and a year or two down the road, another tragic massacre happens again. What then? "

" Mandatory carrying for teachers, banning high capacity magazines and assault-looking rifles, and arming the school principal ain't gonna work and never will. Let the school staff concentrate on their jobs and protect the children as they were trained.If the next guy comes in with a machine gun, all bets are off. A trained person in the school, only concentrating on one thing,.... protect the people in the school. Teachers cannot take on this added responsibility. Only an armed guard could be the first and only defense against such a threat and be willing to alert the police and be shot if that's what it takes. I would volunteer for such a job. "

I agree with you for the most part. I disagree with the premise that teacher must carry. As in a mandate. However, if they wish to, and are permitted by the State of Connecticut to carry, game on. An option, not a mandate. We have to be very careful not to mix the terminology here. I agree mandating teachers to carry will take away from the primary focus of the teacher's job. Some people aren't comfortable handling firearms. I respect that. Most of us respect that. Allowing teacher's to carry if they wish, is the best route. "

I am all about minimizing the casualties and occurrences of these events. However, limiting the magazine size and aesthetic design of a weapon's platform isn't going to have any effect on the intent of those who want to do harm. Knife, chainsaw, bomb, lawn chipper, axe, nail gun, poison, bow & arrow, hatchet, screwdriver, awl, car, truck, pipe, baseball bat, airplane, and on and on and on. All of these can be used as instrument of death. The point is here that had this kid used a bomb, and killed twice as many, I know, without any doubt, we wouldn't have heard a peep out of the gun-control folk's mouths. So please, don't kid me that 20 dead children is really why any of you want more gun control. Like most progressives, 'never let a crisis go to waste'.

You also defeat your own argument by admitting such bans won't eliminate such occurrences.

Now here is a thought, had these 20 children died as a result of a gun shot wound over the course of a year. We probably wouldn't have heard a peep from anyone. It's not big news if just one person dies. The problem here is it happened all at once. Also, everyone points out that we have to do it for the 'children'. Six adults also lost their lives that day. But because they were children and more than one died at the same time, it evokes a considerable amount of emotion in everyone. This is understandable, but not a reason to push for whatever legislation you think might work or could possibly work (while demonstrating a complete lack of regard to the rights of others), but a reason to really think hard and long about what way would best prevent or at least create a measurable difference in reducing all of these tragic events.

How do you prevent evil? More good. How do you prevent evil people with guns from carrying out their will? More good guys with guns. "

" @george k.....of course it wouldn't get much coverage over a years time.....as far as other weapons ...they don't use them......not effective......they're like the terrorist they want the big show....the big boom....the big bang.... .......the high body count......exactly why we need to ban what they want.......and the law abiding citizens don't need it either....... a win win...... "

" @george k.......that's what i was saying ....the big bang.......comparing them to terrorist.......they always use guns or bombs.....also it is pretty hard to knife a large group of people ......many would get away.......that's why the weapons of choice for mass killing are guns and bombs......... "

" We need to ban assault weapons.....no one needs them...........we haven't had any fertilizer bombs involved in a mass killing since mcvey..........most people who have farms and need large amounts of fertilizer don't buy it at home depot ....it is usually bought at or delivered by rural supply stores.......anyone buying large quantities of ammonium nitrate at home depot should raise some flags..... "

Post a reader comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog. Please be civil and respectful.If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican. Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.